April 19, 2014, 02:09:15 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 46
451
Lenses / Re: Worth Getting 24L & 35L both?
« on: May 02, 2012, 04:04:49 AM »
Why not get both?  They're both good lenses. If you are unsure which is for you, maybe do a search of your current photos to see if you're favouring one focal length over another.  Personally, I find 24mm a very versatile focal length.  Good for group shots.  Plus, you can take a full body photo of someone in which they take up a reasonably large part of the frame and you can still get some good background detail (or bridesmaids/family) in.  But if you're getting in very close, the 35mm, might give you slightly more pleasing results.

452
Lenses / Re: Are primes really more sharp?
« on: April 26, 2012, 04:13:33 AM »
I think the days of categorically saying primes are sharper than (quality) zooms are over.  Its more a question of the versatility of a zoom vs wider aperture and lower weight of a prime.  Primes are usually cheaper, too.

There are some shots that you can only get with a wide aperture prime.  Yet there would rarely be a shot that you could only get with a zoom.  (Unless you are doing some ultra tricky zoom-while-you-take-the-shot thingy - in which case you obviously need a zoom!).

453
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is getting owned in sensor technology
« on: April 20, 2012, 03:56:48 AM »
But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras.

Well, the Sony Alpha 900 has scores that beat the Leica M9, and Hasselblad H3DII 50 and so on.

And the Pentax K5 (with crop sensor) beats the 5D3.

I've no problem acknowledging that the Nikon might have a "better" sensor as tested with the DXO methodology.  But it doesn't mean it produces better pictures.  Canon have rarely been competitive with DXO rankings, but I still prefer the look of the photos taken with their cameras.   

454
Lenses / Re: Active Sports - 135 or 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: April 11, 2012, 05:27:22 AM »
I find the 135mm a little short for field sports and prefer a 70-200 and/or 400mm.  But my lenses choices aren't perfect.  My problem is that I'm using  f4 and f5.6 lenses and to keep the shutter speed up, I need good sunlight, or high ISOs.  From your options, the 70-200 f2.8 lens would be my recommendation for outdoor sports. 

I've never seriously tried to shoot indoor sports, but I'd feel the 135mm would be perfectly for this.  Its sharp wide open, so you can shoot at f2.  At f2, you still need good lighting / high ISO's to keep the shutter speed up.  But it is a stop faster than the 2.8.

The 135mm should also be good for outdoors basketball.  At f2, you'll have plenty of background blur with good bokeh.  But the 70-200 also covers this range.

Which one to choose?  If you're mostly shooting indoors or evenings and can get close to the action, I'd be tempted by the 135mm.  For outdoor sports or if you'll be a reasonable distance from the action, the extra versatility of the 70-200 would sway me.

455
Black & White / Re: So..what sucks about this shot?
« on: April 10, 2012, 03:18:29 AM »
I think its a good shot and I like it.  But, it is a photo of people I don't know. If it was my wife and child, I'd be delighted.  I'd frame it and putting it on wall.  But would I put your photo on my wall?  No.

With close up photos of people, it is difficult to gain widespread acceptance unless it is a photo of someone famous (or unless you are famous).  While people can appreciate it is a good photo, it only has relevance to those pictured and close family members.

I wouldn't take the rejection too personally.  The fact that the judges didn't accept it doesn't detract from it being a good photo.

456
Site Information / Re: Disappointed and goodbye
« on: April 10, 2012, 02:38:01 AM »
Wickidwombat, are your feelings hurt because people don't get the video?  Go eat a bowl of cement and ......  :)

I've noticed that there are a lot of people on this site that use their real name and their comments are rarely inflamatory.  It would be interesting to do a study one day on the level of civility from those who are easily identifiable vs those with a random username. 

In my opinion, it's the internet.  Its a levelling field.  Everyone is just as entitiled to put forward their views as anyone else.  And if somebody disagrees strongly with a comment, they have no hesitation in "correcting" you.  But anonymity gives people the feeling of invincibility and sometimes, people take things too far.  But I doubt there is malicious intent on anyone's part.

457
Quick, bring back the negative karma....I'm about to support Ken Rockwell.

His site is entertaining.  If he can manage to support himself from it, good on him.  I don't think he's ever tried to portray himself as a professional photographer.  He has his biases, likes and dislikes and he doesn't try to hide them.  Sometimes its interesting to read his personal opinion, rather than a (supposedly) objective review.

He's been at it so long, that his site is very comprehensive.   There are some interesting, funny, and perceptive pages.  He might get some of the finer details wrong (such as his regular assertion that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon's), but its rare for him to be totally off track.

RealRaw!  I love how he's coined the term and claiming that he's trademarked it.  You've got to admit - it's funny. 

Sadly, I don't know if he's lost interest in his site.  A couple of years ago, he was belting out some good content.  Now it seems solely like a money making exercise.  It's as though he's sold the site and someone new is just capitalising from the page visits.

Why do I like Ken Rockwell?  It's because I'm a bogan.  And I briefly lived in Logan, Queensland (the bogan capital of Australia).  I was a proud "Logan Bogan".

458
The 60D is a good camera.  While you would be able to see a diferrence in side by side shot comparisons with a 5Diii, for real life use, the differences are largely immaterial unless you are shooting at high ISOs, printing BIG or seeking more background blur.

459
... then do what the military does with their guns.

You mean "rifles".  ;)

I've got a cheapy carbon fibre tripod (triopo).  Apart from the occassional part falling off, it works well and I don't have any concerns using it in water or mud.  I just give a quick rinse in clean water when it looks dirty.  As mentioned above - they're designed to be used.

I'm also a ball head user.  I find it a good option for general use. 

460
EOS Bodies / Re: Unofficial Canon Mirrorless Concept
« on: March 23, 2012, 12:54:55 AM »
Where can I buy it?

Love the concept.  Like others, I'd prefer a shallower flange distance (you'd still be able to use EF and FD lenses with an adapter).  But I understand the design dilema.  The Olympus OM-D, which is the closest thing I can think of, looks a bit too narrow with the hump on top, and doesn't seem quite right.

If I was going to be nit-picky, I'd also suggest some form of grip on the RHS.  It also looks a bit too rounded, but I'd have to see it in real life.

I like the thought that's gone into the detachable viewfinder.  It looks very well integrated.

Where's the direct print button?

461
I'd be surprised if changing a focusing screen would void the warranty.  With my camera, the procedure is listed in the manual. If they didn't want you to do this, why would they be telling you how to do it? 

As mentioned above, different screens can affect metering and the manual gives some suggestions on how to work around this. 

462
Software & Accessories / Re: Negative Printer for 35mm film
« on: March 19, 2012, 05:24:59 AM »
I'd also be tempted to get a recent, second hand, Nikon film scanner.  You can also get various attachments to allow batch scanning of slides, rolls of film, etc. 

Failing that, a new Epson 750 and 700 would be a good bet.   

I use a Canon Scanner.  Its a 9950F.  It works well, but its not made any more.  You can see them reasonably priced on eBay occasionally.

463
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Third party batteries for the 5DMKII
« on: March 19, 2012, 12:01:50 AM »
Cheap third party batteries might only give you 70% of the performance of genuine batteries.  But with such a big price difference, I've usually succumbed to their allure.  I do a similar thing - use the Canon batteries as my preferred option and the third party one's as back-up.   Its a system that works well for me.

464
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Backup body for dangerous areas
« on: March 18, 2012, 11:51:58 PM »
Are you going to have somewhere safe to keep the 5Dii and lenses while you're out with the other camera?  You might find that you're burdening yourself with more gear, only to find that you don't like leaving the expensive gear back in your room.  Otherwise, I'm thinking the 400D would be a handy backup option.  Its low cost and compatible with your other lenses.

465
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New to Rangefinders....
« on: March 17, 2012, 01:28:33 AM »
Have you considered going medium format with a Mamiya 7 or Mamiya 6?  Or one of the fuji's (eg GSW670 / GSW 690)?  While a little bigger than 35mm rangefinders, their size isn't that daunting.  And it will give you something a bit different to your current set up.  Most of these will come in well under budget.  The Mamiya 7 could be under budget depending on the lenses you want.

If you're not too sure if a rangefinder is for you, maybe start off with something fun.  A Canonet QL17 won't break the bank and will give you some retro coolness.  (Plus, maybe they'll increase in value when Canon releases a 40th anniversary FF digital version later this year?)  Until recently, I had a Yashica Electro 35 GSN.  This is a great little camera, too.  There are a lot of different fixed lens 35mm rangefinders around and they can all produce stunning photos.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 46